Hayles v. Jarriel et al

Filing 238

ORDER that the Court sustains defendants' objection. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 8/29/13. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WILSON HAYLES,

(b) the testimony is based on
sufficient facts or data;

Plaintiff,
6: 1O-cv-31

VA

of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact
in issue;

TARMARSHE SMITH, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION

The day prior to trial, Defendants
Tarmarshe Smith and Karen Dekie
("Defendants") filed an objection to
Winston Hayles' s expert witness's
deposition testimony. The Defendants
argue that testimony is unreliable under
the standard of Daubert v. Merrell Dow,
509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Court agrees
and therefore SUSTAINS Defendants's
objection.
II. ANALYSIS
Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702,
states

(c) the testimony is the
product of reliable principles
and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably
applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the
case.
Daubert presented several factors
relevant to scientific reliability,
including:
1) Whether the expert's theory or
technique has been tested;
2) Whether the technique or theory has
been subject to peer review and
publication;
3) The known potential rate of error of
the technique or theory when applied;
and

A witness who is qualified as
an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or
education may testify in the
form of an opinion or
otherwise if:

4) The general acceptance of the
technique by the scientific community.
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94; see also
Clarke v. Schofield, 632 F. Supp. 2d
1350, 1360-62 (M.D. Ga. 2009)
(applying the Daubert factors to analyze
the admissibility of a doctor's scientific
opinion).

(a) the expert's scientific,
technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier

Defendants identify several facts as
relevant to the Daubert analysis.
Hayles's expert, Dr. Obinwanne

Ugwonali, admitted that his testimony is
not based on any medical literature, any
case report, any clinical observations,
nor any current medical research outside
of this case. ECF No. 236-1 at 49-50.
Dr. Ugwonali had never seen a
stemoclavicular joint dislocation in his
practice. ECF No. 236-2 at 9. Dr.
Ugwonali is also unaware of any peerreviewed article that sets forth or
supports his opinion on mechanism of
injury. Id at 13. His depositions contain
no additional information that aids the
Court in determining the scientific
reliability of Dr. Ugwonali's testimony
under the Daubert analysis. Without
more, Hayles cannot show Dr. Ugwonali
derived his opinion from "reliable
principles and methods" or that the
doctor "reliably applied the principles
and methods to the facts of th[is] case."
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
III. CONCLUSION

Hayles failed to establish the
scientific reliability of Dr. Ugwonali's
opinion under Rule 702 and Daubert.
So, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants's
objection.
ThisRday of August 2013.

B. AVANTIEI)ENFIELW, Jul
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF C

IA
2